The BRIA is an adapted version of the Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI) that was developed for adolescents aged 11 to 17 and assesses for psychological disturbances and relationship problems. The BORRTI has been widely used with adults and is reviewed in this database. The BRIA contains only the Object Relations subscales (and not the Reality Testing subscales) from the BORRTI.

It yields scores on 4 scales comparable to the BORRTI scores: 1)Alienation, 2) Insecure attachment, 3) Egocentricity, and 4) Social incompetence. It also yields a score on one additional scale Positive Attachment, which reflects healthy object relations. While both measures have validity scales, the BRIA has a response bias scale in place of the three scales found on the BORRTI. The measure can be administered to individuals orgroups.

The best way to get others to do what I want is to trick them into it.

Social Incompetence

I feel shy when I talk to a boy/girl I don't know.

Positive attachment

I am happy with the amount of affection in my life.

Information Provided:

Areas of Concern/Risks

Continuous Assessment

Raw Scores

Strengths

Training

Administration Training:

Manual/Video

Training to Interpret:

Manual/Video

Prior Experience Psych Testing/Interpretation

Parallel/Alternate Forms

Parallel Form:

No

Alternate Form:

No

Different Age Forms:

No

Altered Version Forms:

Yes

Describe Alternative Forms:

The Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI) is the original version on which the BRIA is based. It contains reality-testing subscales in addition to the object relation scales found on the BRIA. Object relation scale items are comparable except that for the BRIA, three items were dropped and others were added. The wording on most items was simplified on the BRIA.

Psychometrics

Notes on Psychometric Norms:

The 625 public school students who were part of the development sample (see “Population Used to Develop Measure”) comprised the referencesample used to develop standard scores. Only those with no missing items were used. This group averaged 14.3 years of age (SD=1.85, Range=11-19); 273 were boys (44%) and 348 were girls (56%). Ethnicity was 65% White, 19% Black/African American, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 4% Other, and2% Missing.

One set of norms exists for boys and girls across all age groups and ethnicities. The author examined differences and found some significantdifferences for gender and age but reasoned that the effect sizes are small. One ethnicity difference in the moderate-effect size range was found forHispanic youth compared to White youth, suggesting that further research may be needed with this population to determine whether the differencerepresents a true population difference.

Clinical Cutoffs:

Yes

If Yes, Specify Cutoffs:

Response bias=2 SD above or below the average score T<30 or T>70; Positive attachment T<40, all other scales T>59.

Reliability:

Type:

Rating

Statistics

Min

Max

Avg

Test-Retest

Internal Consistency

Acceptable

alpha

0.69

0.77

0.73

Inter-rater

Parallel/Alternate Forms

Questionnable

Pearson r

0.43

0.83

References for Reliability:

From Bell (2005)For the development sample, internal consistencies were .76 for Positive attachment, .69 for alienation, .76 for insecure attachment, .69 for Egocentricity, and .77 for Social incompetence.

There were 59 community college students, and they completed both the BRIA and BORRTI. Correlations for comparable scales were as follows: Alienation = .59, p<.0001; Insecure Attachment = .75, p<.0001; Egocentricity = .43, p<.0001; Social Incompetence = .83, p<.0001.

As the author states, caution must be made when comparing an adolescent's score on the egocentricity scale on the BRIA to that same score on the BORRTI. The egocentricity and alienation scales on the two forms (BRIA and BORRTI) may not be parallel.

References for Content Validity:

The BRIA was developed by adapting items from the BORRTI Form O. Focus groups were conducted with children in grades 6-9, leading to item revision. Items were changed to simplify language and because focus group feedback suggested that children were interpreting the items differently from how they were meant to be interpreted.

Sixteen new items were added to capture relationship experiences that are psychologically meaningful to children, including aspects of their relationships with peers and parents.

Construct Validity:

Validity Type

Not known

Not found

Nonclincal Samples

Clinical Samples

Diverse Samples

Convergent/Concurrent

Yes

Yes

Discriminant

Yes

Sensitive to Change

Intervention Effects

Longitudinal/Maturation Effects

Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups

Yes

Yes

Factorial Validity

Yes

Yes

References for Construct Validity:

From Bell (2005), Bell (2003)Concurrent validity examined by correlating BRIA scale scores and scores from the Personality Inventory for Youth and the Behavior Assessment System for Children: Self-Report for Adolescents.

Examination of mean BRIA scores for different groups (residential psychiatric, residential family treatment, outpatient, and non-clinical) showed significant differences between these groups.

A factor analysis was conducted using the development sample, which included clinical and non-clinical populations. Principal components analysis with an oblique rotation yielded 5 factors, accounting for 16% of the variance. Four of the factors were identical to those found for the adults’ responses on the BORRTI Form O. Analyses examining stability of factor structure found good congruence coefficients for all 5 factors.

Criterion Validity:

Not Known

Not Found

Nonclinical Samples

Clinical Samples

Diverse Samples

Predictive Validity:

Yes

Postdictive Validity:

Yes

Overall Psychometric Limitations:

1. While a factor analysis has been conducted, the variance accounted for by this factor solution is low (16%).

2. Internal consistencies are acceptable, but this would be expected, given that they were calculated using the same sample with which the factor structure was determined. In addition, while acceptable, the internal consistencies are in the lower range of acceptable. Additional work is needed to examine whether the internal consistencies are similar whenexamined in other populations.

3. While the development and normative samples did include a reasonable percentage of African-Americans (19%), it did not involve large samplings of other ethnic groups. More research may be needed before applying the measure to other groups, especially given the author's caution regarding using the BORRTI with respondents who are not fluent in English because it contains idiomatic expressions that are not well understood by foreign-bornEnglish speakers.

Population Information

Population Used For Measure Development:

Sample: 815 children (59.9% girls and 46.1% boys), of which 705 were recruited from public schools and 110 came from clinics and residential treatment centers.

The ethnic composition was as follows: 64.5% White, 19.4% Black/African American,8.8% Hispanic, 3.1% Asian, and 4.2% Other. Average age was 14.4 (SD=1.9, Range 11-17). Average grade in school was 8th grade (SD=1.94, Range=6-11).

Pros & Cons/References

Pros:

1. The measure is based on a widely used measure of adult relationship functioning. Although that measure could be used with adolescents, the author chose to refine the measure and to develop this version, with wording and norms that are more appropriate for this population.2. The measure taps potentially important therapeutic dimensions that may be especially relevant when working with children exposed to trauma.

Cons:

1. The measure is relatively new and is not widely used.2. While a factor analysis has been conducted, the variance accounted for by this factor solution is low (16%).3. Internal consistencies are acceptable, but this would be expected, given that they were calculated using the same sample with which the factor structure was determined. In addition, while acceptable, the internal consistencies are in the lower range of acceptable. Additional work is needed to examine whether the internal consistencies are similar when examined in other populations.4. While the development and normative samples did include a reasonable percentage of African-Americans (19%), it did not involve large samplings of other ethnic groups. More research may be needed before applying the measure to other groups, especially given the author's caution regarding using the BORRTI with respondents who are not fluent in English because it contains idiomatic expressions that are not well understood by foreignbornEnglish speakers.